Writ Petition No. 47292 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 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. 47292 OF 2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: MOHAN KUMAR S.H., S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND LEGAL PRACTITIONER, R/O SOORANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, HASSAN DIVISION, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 HASSAN - 573 201.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-V. ii) ORDER OR DIRECTION COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS AND IN PARTICULAR THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO PASS A FRESH AWARD GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF 19 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.25/2 OF MANGALAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF "RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013" (ACT 30 OF 2013). 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 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court for the second time knocking the doors of this Court seeking following reliefs: I) Quash the endorsement dated 21.09.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent produced as per Annexure-V. Ii) Order/direction commanding the respondents and in particular the 3rd respondent to pass a fresh award granting compensation to the petitioner in respect of acquisition of 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/2 of Mangalapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarsipura Taluk under the provisions of "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013" (Act 30 of 2013). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 2. Case of the petitioner is that his mother was the owner of 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/2 having purchased the same in terms of deeds of sale dated 17.06.1977 and 18.07.1992. That in the notification issued by the respondent authorities seeking to acquire the land for formation/construction of Hiresave-Shanivarasanthe State Highway, only an extent of 19 guntas of land is shown in the name of mother of the petitioner, while remaining extent is shown in the name of one Thangyamma, even though mother of the petitioner was owner of entire extent of 38 guntas of land. 3. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking direction to consider his representation for payment of compensation to the entire extent of land in W.P.No.1242/2014 and W.P.No.2594/2014 (LA-RES). This Court by order dated 17.03.2017 taking on record the submission made by the learned Government pleader that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in a time bound manner had disposed of the said writ petitions directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 12.12.2011 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 date of receipt of the said order. Seven years thereafter the respondent-Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated 08.08.2017 at Annexure-S whereby referring to the earlier order passed by this Court noted above has called upon the petitioner to produce documents to establish his title in respect of remaining extent of 19 guntas of land. 4. In response thereof, petitioner submitted records and had made representation dated 12.09.2017 as per Annexure-T. However, respondent-Assistant Commissioner issued endorsement dated 21.09.2017 as per Annexure-V yet again calling upon the petitioner to furnish the documents of title in justification of claim in respect of 19 guntas of land. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite petitioner having furnished the title deeds and revenue records and in the absence of any counter claim or dispute from anyone much less by the said Thangyamma the respondent-Assistant Commissioner has not considered the case of the petitioner which has constrained him to approach this Court. He submits that since there was no dispute or objections there was no impediment for respondent authorities to adjudicate the matter - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 and release the compensation amount in the name of the petitioner in respect of the entire extent of 38 guntas of land. Inaction on the part of the Assistant Commissioner has led to the present petition. 6. Learned AGA referring to the contents of statement of objections more particularly paragraph 5 thereof submits that though deeds of sale produced by the petitioner indicated entire extent of land measuring 38 guntas in Sy.No.25/2 had been purchased by his mother, the revenue records continue to show that certain transactions in respect of 19 guntas of land having taken place at the instance of one Thangyamma and that since the petitioner had not clarified the same, the representation could not be considered, as directed by this Court on earlier occasion. 7. Heard and perused the records. 8. Paragraph 5 of the statement of objections filed by the respondent authorities reads as under: "5. It is respectfully submitted that the total area acquired for the formation of road was 2 acres in Sy. No.25/2 and the Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act would indicates that the Petitioner's - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 As Huchegowda. Mother Nanjamma, Thangyamma W/o Thimmappa, N.H Mohan Babu S/o Huchegowda were khathedars of 19 guntas each in Sy.No.25/2 and Devaraju S/o Ramegowda was Khathedar of 23 guntas in the same survey number. On verification of the documents, it reveals that Thangyamma W/o Thimmappa has sold 19 guntas in Sy.No.25/2 and another 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/2P to one Kamalamma W/o such Thangyamma has lost the right over the schedule land and on the other hand, it appears from the records that the Petitioner Mother Nanjamma has purchased 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/2 from Kamalamma under the registered sale deed dated 18.07.1992 and 8 guntas under the sale deed dated 17.06.1977 from one Javaraji gowda and his children out of the same Sy.No.25/2 itself and as such the Petitioner mother became the owner of one acre 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/2. Consequent to purchase of one acre 4 guntas of land by the the mother of mutation was effected the Petitioner's mother Nanjamma. However, the name of Thangyamma was continued as Khatedar in respect of Sy.No.25/2 even after she had sold it to Kamalamma was a mistake and thereby, the name of the Thangyamma was shown in the impugned notification and as such the award came to be passed in favour of the Thangyamma with regard to the subject the revenue is mistake authorization and the Petitioner Mother has not made any efforts to change the katha and the said mistake is not intentional on the part of the 3rd Respondent herein and in view of the same, the compensation was not disbursed to the Petitioner, which cannot be a ground to claim compensation under the new Act under 2013 as such and therefore, in view of the discripancies in the Revenue records, enhanced compensation relating to the subject land could not paid to the Petitioner is not a ground for insisting the authorities and therefore, claiming the compensation under the in Sy.No.25/2, the name of the Petitioner in land is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 acquisition proceedings under the new Act is untenable. It is pertinent to mention here that the acquisition proceedings has completed in all respect during 2007 itself and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs from this Hon'ble Court. 9. Interesting to note that the contents of aforesaid statement of objections to the writ petition has been verified and affirmed by none other than the respondent-Assistant Commissioner who has sworn to verifying affidavit. While such an elaborate reasoning is assigned at paragraph 5 of the statement of objections referred to herein above, this Court is unable to see the reasons assigned by the very same respondent-Assistant Commissioner in Endorsement dated 21.09.2017 produced at Annexure-V calling upon the petitioner herein to furnish the documents in justification of his claim in respect of 19 guntas of land. It is trite law if there is no dispute or if the dispute does not involve complicated questions relating to title the Land Acquisition Officer is competent to determine the claims of the parties. 10. The contents of paragraph 5 of the statement of objections as extracted hereinabove would indicate respondent- Assistant Commissioner had indeed appreciated the facts of the matter and that petitioner's mother being absolute owner of 38 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 guntas and has also appreciated the fact that there was an error in the revenue records in which though Thangyamma had sold the property, her name was erroneously reflected in the revenue records. When the respondent-Assistant Commissioner could give instructions to be incorporated in the statement of objections filed as extracted hereinabove and further sworn to verifying affidavit, the inability of the respondent-Assistant Commissioner in proceeding further upon the representation made by the petitioner at his end itself cannot be countenanced. Clearly respondent-Assistant Commissioner has failed to exercise the jurisdiction and authority vested in him without any justification, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court for the second time. That matter is pending over 15 years only due to deliberate inaction on the part of respondent- Assistant Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, following:
Decision
ORDER (a) Petition is allowed. (b) The Endorsement dated 21.09.2017 at Annexure-V is hereby quashed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3520 WP No. 47292 of 2017 (c) The respondent-Assistant Commissioner is directed to pass appropriate orders keeping in mind his very own instruction given to the learned Additional Government Advocate in the objection statement referred to above and pass orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (d) As delay of 15 years is caused on account of inaction on the part of respondent-Assistant Commissioner, who has issued Annexures-S and V and who has failed to discharge his statutory obligation, is liable to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) from his personal account to "Karnataka Legal Services Committee." (e) Registry to issue certificate of recovery in this regard. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24