This single-paragraph order, passed on preliminary hearing of a writ petition, directs the Trial Court to expedite disposition of a suit regarding disputed acquired land within eight months to avoid acrimony while maintaining status quo ante.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 50861 of 2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Smt.Velliyammal, Age: 48 years, Wife of Late Sri. N.Ravi, Residing at K.G.F.Road, Bangarpet Town, Kolar District.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. G. Papireddy, Advocate)
AND:
2
South Western Railway, Bangarpet Division, Bangarpet.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. N.S.Sanjay Gowda, Advocate)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, K.G.F. in M.A.No.35/2012 vide Annexure-G.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in a suit for declaration and injunction, to the effect that the respondent – Railway authorities have not acquired any portion of the petitioner’s land, but under a mistaken impression that it had formed part of the alleged acquisition proceedings, were seeking to interfere with the property and therefore had filed an application for temporary injunction along with the plaint. The same having been contested, the Trial Court had granted an
3
order of temporary injunction, which was challenged in appeal by the respondents before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court, on a further consideration of the contentions of the parties and the reasoning of the Trial Court, has modified the order to direct that the parties shall maintain status quo ante. This, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, has caused mischief in the respondent seeking to interpret the order as enabling them to enter upon the petitioner’s land and to destroy pre-existing construction.
The counsel for the respondent at the outset would dispute that the petitioner owns any land at all and would submit that it is land belonging to the Government which has been formally handed over pursuant to the acquisition proceedings.
It is a fact that the land of the petitioner is duly acquired and there is material produced by the respondent before the trial court to this effect. It is further not true and correct to state that the respondents had illegally entered any part of the petitioner’s
4
land. It is as a matter of right that they prevented the petitioner from putting up a compound wall illegally on the property in question, which has been acquired as already stated. Therefore, there is no question of the respondent interfering with the petitioner’s property. The petitioner’s property having been acquired, it vests in the State, which in turn has been handed over to the respondent. In this light of the matter, since the intention of the lower appellate court was obviously to curtail any development taking place pending adjudication of the matter finally, it is made clear that neither the petitionerplaintiff nor the respondents shall in any manner change the nature of the land pending final adjudication before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is also requested to expedite the adjudication of the suit and to dispose of the same at the earliest, in any event, within a period of eight months if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order in order to avoid further acrimony. If indeed the land has been acquired for the benefit of the Railways, it is in the interest of the State and the
5
General Public that the position is made clear. With that in view, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the consideration of
the same.
The petition stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order in a land acquisition suit needs to be disposed of on preliminary hearing.
Smt. Velliyammal
Union of India
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
