Allowed

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

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2013WP/81264/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution quashing an order rejecting a claim for land compensation. The Court held that a landowner can seek redetermination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act regardless of the status of the initial claim application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed, impugned order dated 15.01.2013 quashed, and matter remanded to Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration.

Shyamala D/O Mallappa Pujeri 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 No. 81264/2013 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Smt. SHYAMALA D/O. MALLAPPA PUJERI AGED 55 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. BASAVANKUDCHI TQ. & DIST. BELGAUM.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND :

¶12

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

¶13

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION BELGAUM TQ. & DIST. 590 001. … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY Smt. K VIDYAVATHI, AGA)

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY ASST. COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION, BELGAUM DATED 15.01.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE D AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Smt. Vidyavathi, learned Additional Government Advocate

¶20

is directed to take notice for respondents.

¶21

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.01.2013 – Annexure D passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act’).

¶22

Petitioner contends that she was the owner of 5 guntas of land in survey No. 350/2 situated at Basavankudchi village, Belgaum taluk and the same came to be acquired by the respondents in the year 2002. The application filed by the petitioner under Section

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

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 other land arising out of the same notification. In the circumstances on the basis of the award passed by the civil Court the petitioner made an application under Section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of the compensation amount. Under the impugned order respondent No. 2 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that her 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 re-determination of the compensation on the basis of an award passed by the civil Court in respect of other lands arising out of the same notification. On this ground the impugned order at Annexure D is liable to be quashed.

¶25

For the reasons stated above, the following;

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶29

ii. The impugned order dated 15.01.2013 Annexure D is hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file

¶32

memo of appearance within three weeks.

¶33

��

¶34

Lrs.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamala D/O Mallappa Pujeri 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

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