The Additional Registrar vs Sri H Basavaraj S/O Laxmappa Hiremani

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Oct 14, 2025

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1276739

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1276739
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: S G Pandit,Geetha K.B.
Decided On: Oct 14, 2025
Case Number: WP/104798/2024
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Additional Registrar

Respondent

Sri H Basavaraj S/O Laxmappa Hiremani

Excerpt

.....the hon'ble mr. justice s g pandit and the hon'ble mrs justice geetha k.b.oral common order(per: the hon'ble mr. justice s g pandit) in these writ petitions by karnataka lokayukta represented by registrar/addl. registrar, common facts are involved between common respondents, hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. both these writ petitions are filed challenging thecommon order dated 14.06.2022 passed in application nos.10004 to 10006 of 2020 and application nos.10232 to 10234 of 2020 by the karnataka state administrative tribunal at belagavi1, whereunder, the tribunal by allowing for short ‘tribunal’ -4- the said applications, quashed the entrustment order dated 26.11.2019 (annexure-a9) and consequential articles of charge dated 29.01.2020 (annexure-a2) and remitted the matter to the respondent no.4/government to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.3. heard the learned standing counsel sri. srinivas bnaik for the petitioner/lokayukta in both writ petitions and learned government advocate sri. g.k.hiregoudar for the respondent/state. perused the entire writ petition papers.4. respondents no.1 to 3 herein were before thetribunal questioning the entrustment order of enquiry dated 26.11.2019 passed under rule 14a of the karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 19572 and consequential articles of charge issued by the petitioner dated 29.1.2020 on various grounds including the ground that while entrusting the enquiry, the government has not examined the material on record. the tribunal accepting the contention that the respondent/state has not examined the for short ‘cca rules’ -5- material on record and simply endorsed the report, set-aside the order of entrustment as well as consequential articles of charge.5. on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned government advocate, we are not inclined to accept the submission of learned.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO. 104796 OF 2024 (S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 104798 OF 2024 (S-KAT) IN WP NO. 104796/2024: BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. H. BASAVARAJ S/O LAXMAPPA HIREMANI
51 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD SUB-DIVISION, SHIRATTI, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. PWD QUARTERS, HARIPUR, SHIRAHATTI, Digitally DIST. GADAG-582101. signed by RAKESH S RAKESH HARIHAR S Location: HIGH HARIHAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
2. SRI. B.H.M. DEVARAJ S/O. B.H.M. VEERABHADRAIAH 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD SUB-DIVISION, GADAG. R/AT. PWD QUARTERS, DIST. GADAG-582101.
3. SRI. SHIVANAND R. NAIK S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK 54 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD, DHARWAD CIRCLE, DHARWAD. R/AT. PWD QUARDERS, KCD CIRCLE, 581329. HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, T GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS & INLAND -2- WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 14-6-2022 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.10004TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS & ETC. IN WP NO. 104798/2024: BETWEEN: THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. H. BASAVARAJ S/O LAXMAPPA HIREMANI 51 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD SUB-DIVISION, SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT-582120. R/AT. PWD QUARTERS, HARIPUR, SHIRAHATTI,
2. SRI. B.H.M. DEVARAJ S/O. B.H.M. VEERABHADRAIAH 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD SUB-DIVISION, GADAG-582101. R/AT. PWD QUARTERS, DIST. GADAG.
3. SRI. SHIVANAND R. NAIK S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK 54 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD, DHARWAD CIRCLE, DHARWAD. R/AT. PWD QUARDERS, KCD CIRCLE, 581329. HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS -3- (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 14-6-2022 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.10232TRIBUNAL PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS & ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL COMMON ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) In these writ petitions by Karnataka Lokayukta represented by Registrar/Addl. Registrar, common facts are involved between common respondents, hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the

common order dated 14.06.2022 passed in Application Nos.10004 to 10006 of 2020 and Application Nos.10232 to 10234 of 2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi1, whereunder, the Tribunal by allowing For short ‘Tribunal’ -4- the said applications, quashed the entrustment order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-A9) and consequential articles of charge dated 29.01.2020 (Annexure-A2) and remitted the matter to the respondent No.4/government to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.

3. Heard the learned standing counsel Sri. Srinivas B

Naik for the petitioner/Lokayukta in both writ petitions and learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar for the respondent/State. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein were before the

Tribunal questioning the entrustment order of enquiry dated 26.11.2019 passed under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19572 and consequential articles of charge issued by the petitioner dated 29.1.2020 on various grounds including the ground that while entrusting the enquiry, the government has not examined the material on record. The Tribunal accepting the contention that the respondent/State has not examined the For short ‘CCA Rules’ -5- material on record and simply endorsed the report, set-aside the order of entrustment as well as consequential articles of charge.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate, we are not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/Lokayukta.

6. When the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that

the respondent/State has not applied its mind while passing the entrustment order dated 26.11.2019 in terms of Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and when the State has not preferred any writ petition against the said

order of the Tribunal, it is not open for the

petitioner/Lokayukta to file present writ petitions. When the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that there is non- application of mind by the State, it is for the State to establish the application of mind. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any writ petition. -6-

7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate

Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar submits that in compliance of order of the Tribunal, the State has taken decision to withdraw the entrustment order passed under Rule 14A of CCA Rules. The said submission is placed on record.

8. For the reasons recorded above and taking note

of further development that the government has taken decision to withdraw the entrustment order passed under Rule 14A of CCA Rules, both writ petitions are rejected. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties The Additional Registrar vs Sri H Basavaraj S/O Laxmappa Hire... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S G Pandit,Geetha K.B.