Remanded

Smt Sujathamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2014WP/41736/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenged the delay in disburseing compensation for acquired land by respondents. The court, on preliminary hearing, directed the authorities to hold an enquiry into the petitioner's claim as a beneficiary under a Will and pass orders within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to BDA and State Government to hold an enquiry into the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders within four months.

Smt Sujathamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 41736 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Sujathamma, Daughter of Hanumanthaiah, Aged about 42 years, Residing at Allalasandra, G.K.V.K. Post, Bangalore – 560 64.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. N.R. Naik, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶13

The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vishveshwaraiah Tower, 3^rd Floor, Podium Block, Bangalore – 560 001. 4. The Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scientific Research Center, By its Managing Director, Srirampuram Main Road, Jakkur, Bangalore North Taluk – 560 064. 5. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶16

Shri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

¶17

Shri. Padubidri Mohan Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents authorities to disburse the award amount for having acquired the lands in Sy.No.84/1 and 84/2 measuring into extent 23 guntas out of 4 acres 28 guntas and 1 acre 22 guntas sitated at

¶20

¶21

Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for the respondent no.4, under notification dated 3.7.2001 issued by the respondent no.1 and formation of respondent no.5 and 6 of Arkavathi Layout under final notification dated 23.2.2004, in Sy.No.88/3, 0.28 guntas out of 3 acres 19 guntas, situated at Jakkur Village, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and etc;

¶22

This Writ Petition is coming on for preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, is considered for final disposal.

¶25

The petitioner is before this court claiming that one

¶26

Muniveerappa acquired land at a partition in Sy.No.84/1 to an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas, in Sy.No.84/2 to an extent of 28 guntas and in respect of Sy.No.88/3 to an extent of 28 guntas of Jakkur village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Of these lands, it is stated that an extent of 28 guntas was acquired under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity), for the formation of Arkavathi Layout, vide preliminary notification

¶27

¶28

dated 3.2.2003 and a final notification dated 23.02.2004. The award was passed and possession was also taken. However, it transpires that Muniveerappa had died. The present petitioner claims to be a beneficiary by virtue of a ‘Will’ executed by late Muniveerappa and it is on the basis of the said ‘Will’ that the petitioner claims compensation in respect of the acquired lands. Though the award was of the year 2004, the present petitioner has approached the Land Acquisition Officer seeking compensation. In view of the belated application and the fact that the petitioner does not claim to be a direct legal heir of late Muniveerappa, there has been delay in the BDA considering the case of the petitioner. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.

¶29

The BDA has entered appearance and has filed objections that though the will is registered, the application filed by the petitioner is belated and moreover, there are no other supporting documents in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the BDA has held that there was necessity for an

¶30

¶31

enquiry being held as to the bona fides of the petitioner’s claim and hence, it is stated that if reasonable time is granted, that the enquiry would be completed and an order passed one way or the other, as far as the claim for compensation is concerned.

¶32

Recording the statement made by the BDA, the

¶33

petition is disposed of directing the BDA to hold an enquiry and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of four months, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

Added to the petitioner’s grievance, it transpires that in respect of yet another portion of land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No.84/2 of Jakkur village, the State Government has also acquired the said portion of land in acquisition proceedings of the year 2001, the details of which are furnished at Annexure-“B” of the petition and it is also the complaint of the petitioner that the State Government as well, has dithered in granting the compensation in favour of the petitioner on the very ground that she is claiming under the ‘Will’ of late Muniveerappa to whom the lands belong and there has been

¶35

¶36

delay. Therefore, the State Government is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner, and to pass appropriate

¶37

orders within a period of four months, if not earlier.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Smt Sujathamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sujathamma v. the State of Karnataka

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 M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmugam P Vs Karnataka State Law University

Shri Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Venkatesh Vs Bangalore Development Authority

S J E S College of Education (M.Ed., ) Vs the Bangalore University

Smt Hanumakka W/O Late Komaraiah Vs State of Karnataka