Dismissed

Veeranna S/O Shivamurteppakolhar v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2020WP/100031/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions for road widening and compensation under Article 227. The Court held that since the promoters had already received compensation as per vouchers annexed to the respondent's memo, the writ petitions could no longer survive and were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed on the ground that petitioners have already received compensation as per vouchers produced by the department. No reliefs granted.

Veeranna S/O Shivamurteppakolhar Vs the Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.100031/2017 (LB-RES) & WRIT PETITION NO.100943-947/2017 & WRIT PETITION NO.100997-1001/2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VEERANNA S/O SHIVAMURTEPPAKOLHAR AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: BUSINEJSS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶8

AJEETH S/O PARISHAPPAKOPPAD AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶9

YOGANGOUDA S/O BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE.

¶10

NINGAPPA S/O HANAMATHAPPA JAWANAR AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶11

MANSURSAB S/O BAWAJAN MUJAWAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶12

NIMBEWWA W/O LATE BASAWANTAPPA ANEPPANAVAR AGE: 87 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶13

¶14

SUBHASH S/O GURAPPA MODI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶15

PANDURANG TULJARAM AMBORE AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶16

VIMALA W/O VITTAL AMBORE AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶17

SOMALINGAYYA S/O RUDRAYYA PYATIMATH AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE

¶18

SANGAPPA SIDDAPPA KALYANI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BAZAR ROAD, BILAGE, DIST: BAGALAKOTE ... PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, SRI. B.S. BYAKOD AND SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶20

AND

¶21

THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU

¶22

THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, BENGALURU

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALAKOTE DIST., BAGALAKOTE

¶24

THE CHAIRMAN TOWN PANCHAYAT, BILAGI,

¶25

¶26

BILAGI, DIST.: BAGALAKOTE

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HGGP FOR R1-R3) (SRI. ANAND R KOLLI, ADV. FOR R4)

¶29

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CARRY OUT INTENDED ROAD WIDENNING PROGRAM AS PER RESOLUTION DATED:04.05.2015 AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED ONLY AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ACQUIRING THE SUIT PROPERTIES AND 2) ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS BEFORE DEMOLISHING THE SUIT PROPERTIES.

¶30

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following

¶33

reliefs:

¶34

i) Issue appropriate direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to carry out intended road widening program as per resolution dated 4.5.2015 at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioners are concerned only after following due procedure of law and in accordance with law after acquiring the suit properties.

¶35

¶36

ii) Issue further direction or writ in the nature of mandamus to make payment of the appropriate compensation to the petitioners before demolishing the suit properties.

¶37

iii) Any other and further orders as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

¶38

2. It is stated that the petitioners are carrying

¶39

on small scale business in the premises at Bazaar road, Bilagi, Dist:Bagalakote since many years. The building in which the petitioners are carrying on their business are old structures.

¶40

It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent No.4 passed a resolution dated 4.5.2015 to widen the road. The petitioners contend that the procedure has not been followed and no survey has taken place for widening the road. In that circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court praying for a direction to the respondent No.4 to carry out intended road widening only after following due

¶41

¶42

procedure of law and further direction to make payment of the appropriate compensation to the petitioners.

¶43

Respondent No.4 has filed a memo dated 13.12.2019 stating that the petitioners had taken the compensation from the respondent No.4-Authority and for having disbursed the compensation amount, the respondent No.4 has placed on record along with the memo, payment vouchers in respect of the petitioners herein. The payment as per the vouchers have been made as long back on 15.12.2017.

¶44

When this matter was heard on 3.1.2020, learned counsel for the petitioners took time to take instruction with regard to payment of compensation received by the petitioners. Today, there is no representation for the petitioners in the morning as well as in the afternoon. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners have already received the compensation amount as per the vouchers annexed to the memo dated 13.12.2019, the writ petitions no more survives for

¶45

¶46

consideration. Accordingly, the writ petitions are

¶47

dismissed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

JTR

Veeranna S/O Shivamurteppakolhar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeranna S/O Shivamurteppakolhar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Kiran S/O Ramasing Naik, Vs the State of Karantaka

Sayadkhadarsab S/O Gousmodinsab Benkipura Vs Smt.Mahabubi W/O Gafarsahab Tilavalli

Sri.Shiddappa S/O. Kallappa Khandibagur Vs Jagadisha S/O. Mahadevappa Khandibagur

Honnnavva Ningappa Huralikoppi Vs the State of Karnataka

Vasanthrao S/O Ramarao Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shadashiv S/O Bhimappa Malappanavar Vs the State of Karnataka