Dismissed

Mr P J Damian v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2014WP/23051/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for enhancement of land acquisition compensation, holding it lacked substance as the petitioner had been heard at every stage and the order was reasoned.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; compensation enhancement application remains dismissed as per order of Assistant Commissioner.

Mr P J Damian Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.23051-23052 OF 2012 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. P.J. Damian, Son of Mr. P.T.John, Adult,

¶9

Mr. Romato John, Son of Mr. P.T. John, Adult,

¶10

Both are residing at Kullanje Village, Post: Shankarnarayana, Kundapura Taluk.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(By Shri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Kundapura.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(By Shri. H. Anantha, Government Pleader )

¶17

¶18

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of dismissing the application filed by the petitioner’s for refer the matter to Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura for enhancement of compensation passed by the respondent in LAQ SR: 3/2004-05 dated 18.01.2012 which produced as Annexure-E and F and consequently allowed this writ petition by allowing prayer in application filed by the petitioner which is produced as Annexure – C and D.

¶19

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is the

¶22

case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is the absolute owner in possession of 20 cents of land in Survey No.9/4, 18 cents of land in Survey No.9/5, 14 cents of land in Survey No.9/18, 23 cents of land in Survey No.9/19, 2 cents of land in Survey No.9/23, 3 cents of land in Survey No.9/26, 10 cents of land in Survey No.9/27, 94 cents of land in Survey No.10/1, 18 cents of land in Survey No.10/2, 16 cents of land in Survey No.10/3, 12 cents of land in Survey No.10/8 and 3-88 acres of land in Survey No.137/1 and that petitioner no.2 is the absolute

¶23

¶24

owner of land in possession of 70 cents of land in Survey No.9/9, 32 cents of land in Survey No.10/4, 19 cents of land in Survey No.10/5 and 21 cents of land in Survey No.10/6 of Kullanje village, Kundapur Taluk.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioners that the said lands are

¶26

adjacent to Kundapur–Halady-Shimoga State Highway on one side and Grama Panchayath Road on the other side and one Kilometre away from Shankaranarayan Town and they are well-developed agricultural lands with fruit-bearing trees and standing timber. The same were acquired for the formation of Varahi Water Channel and that the petitioners were entitled to not less than Rs.10,000/- per cent of land. However, the compensation was fixed at Rs.610/- per cent of land, which is very low. After learning of the award, an application was filed seeking reference of the matter to the Senior Civil Judge, for enhancement of the compensation and that after hearing the application, the same was rejected as barred by limitation.

¶27

¶28

Therefore, the petitioners are before this court to contend that they were without notice of the award.

¶29

However, it is noticed that in contradiction of the facts

¶30

narrated in the petition, it is claimed that there was no application filed, seeking enhancement of compensation since the petitioners did not have notice of the award. Apart from the fact that there is a self contradiction in the very petition, as could be seen from the records secured by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners were indeed heard at every stage and that they had also filed objections apart from seeking enhancement of compensation and it is on consideration of the said objections same, that the application

¶31

was rejected by a reasoned order.

¶32

Hence, there is no substance in this petition and the same

¶33

is rejected.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Mr P J Damian v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P J Damian v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Shri Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K P Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Nitheesh Narayanan Vs Secretary

Sri Mahadi Hussain S/O Late Mushtaq Ali Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Venkateshwara Developers Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Dr N Mahalingam Vs Rajeev Gandhi University