Allowed

Tanaji S/O Vaiju Jathrati v. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2013WP/81263/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order rejecting their application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that land owners are entitled to such applications regardless of the status of earlier Section 18(1) applications and quashed the impugned order. Matters remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.01.2013 quashed; matter remanded to respondent No. 2 for reconsideration of petitioners' application under Section 28-A.

Tanaji S/O Vaiju Jathrati Vs State of Karnataka by Its… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 81263/2013 & 82386/2013 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Sri. TANAJI S/O. VAIJU JATHRATI AGED 45 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST

¶9

Sri. MAHADEV S/O. KALLAPPA JATHRATI AGED 70 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O. SAMBRA TQ. & DIST. BELGAUM.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY Sri. P V SAMBARAGI, ADV., FOR Sri. S N HATTI, ADV.)

¶13

AND :

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BELGAUM SUBDIVISION BELGAUM – 590 001. BELGAUM TQ. & DIST. … RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY Smt. K VIDYAVATHI, AGA)

¶18

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION, BELGAUM DATED 15.01.2013 AND ETC.

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Smt. Vidyavathi, learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶22

directed to take notice for respondents.

¶23

In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ

¶24

in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.01.2013 –

¶25

Annexure D passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act’).

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

Petitioners contend that they were the owners of 2 guntas of land in R.S. No. 275/9 situated at Sambra village, Belgaum taluk and the same came to be acquired by the respondents in the year 2002. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 18(1) of the Act came to be rejected. In the meanwhile the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Belgaum passed an award in L.A.C. No. 1/2006 dated 31.07.2012 enhancing the compensation in respect of the land arising out of the same notification. In the circumstances on the basis of the award passed by the civil Court the petitioners made an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the compensation amount. Under the impugned order respondent No. 2 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that their application under Section 18(1) of the Act is already dismissed. This reasoning of respondent No. 2 is contrary to Section 28-A of the Act. Whether the land owner filed an application under Section 18 or the application filed is rejected the land looser is entitled to make an application under Section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of an award passed by the civil Court in respect of other lands arising out of the same

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

notification. On this ground the impugned order at Annexure D is liable to be quashed.

¶30

For the reasons stated above, the following;

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

i. Writ petitions are hereby allowed.

¶33

ii. The impugned order dated 15.01.2013 Annexure D is

¶34

hereby quashed.

¶35

iii. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 2 for reconsideration of petitioners’ application under Section 28-A of the Act in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file

¶37

memo of appearance within three weeks.

¶38

��

¶39

Lrs.

Tanaji S/O Vaiju Jathrati v. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji S/O Vaiju Jathrati v. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basayya S/O. Gavisiddayya Dangurmath Vs the Deputy Director of Public Instructions

Sidramappa Danigond Memorial Trusts Vs Union of India

Sri Jayanagouda M Patil Vs the Secretary

Vittappa S/O. Dharmappa Walikar Vs the General Manager

Kariyavva W/O Lakshmappa Kolkar Vs General Manager

Shyamala D/O Mallappa Pujeri Vs State of Karnataka by Its Secretary