Writ Petition No. 4576 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4576 OF 2021 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAVARAIAH S/O KEMPACHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NANDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORETALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NADANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT. (BY SRI. D R RAJASHEKHARAPPA.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. BUIDLING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE - 570 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE CITY- 570 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 4. THE THAHASILDAR MYSORE TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA MYSORE - 570 001. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH MINI VIDHANA SOUDAH MYSORE TALUK MYSORE CITY. 6. ALANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYTH REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KASABA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
Legal Reasoning
7. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PLOT NO.4, RAJAJINAGAR I.T. PARK, FIRST FLOOR RAJAJINAGARA, INDUSTRIA AREA BENGALURU - 560 044.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5, R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE FOR R7(VC)) …RESPONDENTS
Decision
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF THEIR LAND BEARING SY.NO.140 MEASURING 1 ACRE 14 GUNTAS SITUATED AT NADANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court claiming to be the owners of land bearing Sy.No.140 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situated at Nandanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District which was acquired by the respondent No.2 in terms of notification dated 31.01.1992 under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (for short Act, 1972) published in the Official Gazette dated 06.02.1992. That after the acquisition sites have been formed and allotted to the persons belonging to the weaker sections of society for whose benefit the acquisition was made. However, petitioners have not been paid compensation as provided under Section 4 of the Act, 1972. That petitioners had approached the respondent-authorities and have been following up relentlessly, for no avail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation was made to the respondent No.6- Pachayath Development Officer in furtherance to the direction that was issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the letter dated 04.02.2013 addressing the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner regarding non-payment of the compensation to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 the petitioners. That in furtherance thereof, respondent No.4- Tahsildar by communication dated 06.10.2006 had directed the Taluk Surveyor to prepare the sketch and to submit a report in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners. Pursuant to which it was reported that the entire land of the petitioners have been utilized for construction of houses. Respondent No.4 Tahsildar had sent a communication to the petitioner No.1 on 18.02.2011 intimating that the authorities have decided to purchase the land of the petitioners under Ashraya Scheme at Rs.4,01,306/- calculated at the rate of Rs.2,47,720/- per acre. However, even the said amount has not been paid to the petitioners. Hence, the petition. 3. That in response to the complaint submitted by the petitioners to the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Commission, a communication dated 01.03.2017 at Annexure-J was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore addressed to the Secretary of said Commission encapsulating the events that unfolded from 1992 till issuance of the said communication in the year 2017. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 4. Referring to averments made in the petition and documents referred to therein learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the seasless and relentless efforts by the petitioners seeking justice have not been materialized. Under this circumstances petitioners are constrained to approach this Court and seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. Learned AGA submits that the acquisition/utilization of the land of the petitioners was for the purpose of construction of residential houses under Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Scheme for which respondent No.7 was constituted. She submits that land of the petitioners has been utilized by the respondent No.6- Gram Pachayath for formation of layout and construction of houses under Ashraya Scheme. However, respondent No.2 -Deputy Commissioner has directed the respondent No.7 to pay the cost of acquisition and compensation charges inasmuch as respondent No.7 is in charge of Rural Housing Corporation. She submits that it is the responsibility of respondent No.7 to pay the compensation to the petitioners who are required to submit the proposal to the Government. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 6. Sri. Vikyath B, counsel for respondent No.7 appearing through Video conferencing on the other hand submits that responsibility of respondent No.7 is only to oversee the implementation of the Scheme and there is no liability on the part of the respondent No. 7 to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 on instructions submits that since the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners the Scheme has not been implemented as on this date and the land is still falling vacant. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. There is no dispute of the fact that land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas forming part of Sy.No.140 of Nadanahalli village, belonging to the petitioners has been utilized by the respondent No.6 for formation of layout and construction of residential houses under Ashraya Scheme, albeit to be supervised by the respondent No.7. Submissions being made by the learned AGA and counsel for the respondent No.7 would indicate that each one is blaming the other, deliberately avoiding and shirking away from the responsibility. That respondent No.1-State which on the one hand claims eminent - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 domain over the land after having utilized the same without following due process of law in gross violation of the provisions of the Article 300A of Constitution of India and on the one hand, pleads ignorance of its corresponding statutory obligation in compensating the land losers by resorting to trivial method of shifting the burden and responsibility on its own organization. That respondent No.1-State seems to be failing to realize that ultimately it is its responsibility for making the payment towards the land of the petitioners which is utilized for implementation of its project for the public purpose. In that view of the matter, the submission made by the learned AGA and submission made by learned counsel or the respondent No.7 cannot be countenanced. If there is any internal dispute between the departments, it is for the State to set it right. The same cannot be the reason for denying the constitutional right of the petitioners to seek compensation of the land which is admittedly utilized without following due process of law to implement the project of the State. 9. In that view of the matter and in view of admitted position as noted above, petition is disposed of with the following directions; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3698 WP No. 4576 of 2021 (a). Petitioners are at liberty to submit a fresh representation within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to ensure the compensation payable to the petitioners towards utilization of this land for the aforesaid purposes be determined. Such compensation be calculated from the date on which the possession of the property was taken with all consequential benefits in terms of the statute. Such exercise shall be done within an outer limit of six (6) months after representation being made by the petitioners. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26