B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No. 17233 of 2011 · Karnataka High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
AND:
Saraladevi, W/o Late Rajendra Kumar Gangal, Age about 55 years, 0cc: Household, R/o Gulbarga.
Smt. Premila Gangal, W/o Anil Kumar Gangal, Age: 45 Years, 0cc: Household, R/o Gulbarga. (By Sri Amresh S.Roja, Advocate) ...Petitioners The State of Karnataka, By its Revenue Secretary, Multi Storied Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-560 001. The Deputy Commissioner, G u I b a rg a. The Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga,
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Department, Gulbarga. The Commissioner, Gulbarga City Corporation, Gulbarga, Respondents (By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA for R-1 to R-4, Sri Veeranagouda for Sri P.S.Malipatil, Advocates for R5) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the the schedule property of Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents not demolish and take possession of petitioners’ property without notifying under the Act and etc. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Sri Amresh S.Roja, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this petition the building on the schedule property is demolished and that the respondents have taken the possession of the property. He submits that the respondents have neither resorted to the compulsory acquisition of land nor paid any compensation to the petitioners.
2. Sri Veeranagouda, learned counsel respondent No.5 submits that the proposals are already made by the respondent No.5 for the compulsory acquisition of petitioners’ land.
3. Sri Shivakumar Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits the petitioners’ property was left out of acquisition notifications by inadvertence.
The demolition of the building on the private property and the occupation by the State and its instrumentalities without following the due process of law is absolutely unsupportable and unsustainable. The demolition of the building on the schedule property during the pendency of this petition is reflective of the lack of regard for the majesty of law.
5. Whether to compulsorily acquire the land or not is a matter falling within the eminent domain of the State. This Court, in exercise of the power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not direct the Government to acquire or not to acquire the land.
However, if a private property is required for a public purpose, the same has to be taken either by its compulsory acquisition ot by holding the negotiations with its owners for taking it on sale, lease, etc. basis. F8H. 4
The Government is directed the order determining the damages/occupation charges/rent within seven months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today’s order, if it fails to resort to the compulsory acquisition of the petitioners’ property and to pass the award within six months from today.
This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. MD 8d/ JUDGE
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.