Writ Petition No. 16305 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19770 WP No. 16305 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16305 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRI DEVARAJU S/O RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT GOPALAPURA KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216. (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD TUMAKURU – 572 101. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE BEHIND CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICE KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI TUMAKURU - 572 104. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI TUMAKURU - 572 104. (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19770 WP No. 16305 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12-11-2024 BEARING NO.SLAO/SR(G- BIKKEGUDDA) NO.02/14/2020-21/238, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI PROJECT, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, WITH RESPECT TO REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER FOR REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION OF SY. NO.35/6, MEASURING 0.01.12 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT INGALADAKAVAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK AND TUMAKURU DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a. Issue of Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the endorsement dated: 12-11-2024, bearing No.SLAO/SR(G-Bikkegudda) No.02/14/2020-21/238, issued by the 2nd respondent, The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Project, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru, vide Annexure-C, with respect to rejecting the request of the petitioner for reference to the District court for enhancement of compensation of Sy. No.35/6, measuring 0-01.12 guntas, situated at Ingalada Kaval village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk & Tumakuru District. b. Issue of Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19770 WP No. 16305 of 2025 HC-KAR to right Road, Tumakuru, to refer cases under section 64(2)(b) of fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition rehabilitation and the authority, by resettlement act 2013, considering the petition dated: 19-09-2024, filed by the Petitioner, vide Annexure-A, with respect to Sy. No.35/6 measuring 0-01-12 guntas, situated at Ingalada Kaval village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk & Tumakuru District, within stipulated period. to c. Issue any other Writ or Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court be deems fit it necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in the lis is identical to what the coordinate bench has held in W.P.No.6330 of 2025, disposed on 12.03.2025. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would not dispute the position of law as is considered by the coordinate bench in the afore-quoted writ petition. 5. The coordinate bench in W.P.No.6330 of 2025, disposed on 12.03.2025, has held as follows: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by a decision of the Co- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19770 WP No. 16305 of 2025 HC-KAR ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. LINGAMMA & ANR. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS., in W.P.No.25237/2024, dated 21.10.2024, which was also followed subsequently in many other cases. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 - Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO' for brevity) has issued the impugned endorsement declining to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), on the ground that the application is filed after a delay of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice at the hands of the SLAO. 2. In the said decision in the case of SMT. LINGAMMA (SUPRA), this Court has noticed that the proviso to Clause 'b' of Sub-section 2 of Section 64 clearly provides that the Collector/SLAO may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there are sufficient cause for not filing the application within the period specified in the first proviso. 3. That being the case, when admittedly the delay is only 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the notice at the hands of the SLAO, the SLAO could not have declined to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Act. 4. This Court has noticed that despite such directions being issued by this Court and the fact that there is an express provision as noticed herein above, vesting the power with the Collector/SLAO to consider the application for reference by condoning the delay, the concerned SLAOs. are not exercising their discretion. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the State Government, through all the respective Departments which are empowered to acquire lands, may issue a circular / Deputy Commissioners and issue directions to all such authorities to exercise their discretion in terms of the provisions of the Act rather than issuing such endorsement and declining to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Act.” the concerned SLAOs. to all - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19770 WP No. 16305 of 2025 HC-KAR In the light of the order passed by the coordinate bench, where general directions were also issued and the impugned endorsement, which is issued prior to the order passed by the coordinate bench, would necessarily be obliterated. Therefore, the following:
Decision
ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner strictly in consonance with what is held by the coordinate bench as quoted supra, within an outer limit of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 5 CT:SS