Writ Petition No. 102549 of 2024 · Karnataka High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 21(2)(a)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Placing the submission of the learned counsels for the respondents, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10534 WP No. 102549 of 2024 ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents…
Judgment
(BY SRI PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, K.I.A.D.B., KHANIJABHAVAN, BENGALURU-01.
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, K.I.A.D.B. RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAKAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580004. (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI PAVAN DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) … RESPONDENTS YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10534 WP No. 102549 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUES A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19-01-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel Sri Pavan Doddatti is directed to take notice for respondents No.3 and 4.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2/State and learned counsel Sri Pavan Doddatti, for respondents No.3 and 4 (KIADB).
4. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property bearing Sy.No.371/1 measuring 03 acre, 21 guntas out of which 01 acre, 05 gunta is ‘B’ Kharab situated at Kanagala village of Hukkeri taluka in Belagavi district. The petitioner claims to be in personal cultivation of the land since many years and it is also seen that the ‘revision settlement akarband’ (utar) indicates that the said extent of land is - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10534 WP No. 102549 of 2024 classified as ‘A’ kharab land. This being the state of affairs, respondent authority proposed to acquire the land by issuing Government notification bearing No.CE83 SPQ 2015 dated
04.08.2015, pursuant to the notification the petitioner filed objections, requested the authorities to hold enquiry since the land is very much essential for livelihood and survival of the petitioner. On the request, proceedings were concluded by way of mutual award on 02.11.2015. Compensation was fixed for all the acquired lands, for dry lands at Rs.17.25 lakhs and for bagayat/irrigated lands Rs.18.25 lakhs and the same was sent to be declared to the State.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while determining the compensation, respondent authorities ignored determining the compensation insofar as the phot kharab land in spite of request, but the same was to be treated as saguvali land. The same was not considered while passing the award. The extent of phot kharab land falls within the category of section 21(2)(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Admittedly the land belongs to the petitioner. But this phot kharab land is excluded. This being the state of affairs, due to the inaction of the respondents in not - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10534 WP No. 102549 of 2024 considering the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court left with no other alternative efficacious remedy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the owner of the land and the phot kharab land falls within the ownership of land and admittedly no compensation has been awarded to that extent of land. He contends that the petitioner has constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India to rightfully enjoy his property. Any agency of the State wants to acquire the same, they would have to acquire the same in accordance with law and in the manner known to law and pay the compensation as per law. In the present case the respondents having not done it, the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for KIADB contend that the representation so made by the petitioner, if any, would be considered, if not made, he could make a fresh representation, which would be considered in accordance with law.
Operative part
Placing the submission of the learned counsels for the respondents, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10534 WP No. 102549 of 2024 ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the representation, if any made and if not made, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation, which shall be considered by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii) It is needless to mention that the respondents while conducting enquiry, shall provide suitable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any such order. Sd/- JUDGE CKK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s. 21(2)(a).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.