Allowed

Shri.Veeranna S/O Basappa Sappadla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021WP/101023/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation for a 1120 sq.ft. land portion rendered useless by partial land acquisition for airport expansion. Court held landowners must be compensated for loss caused to them even if remaining land is useless to authorities, and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashed endorsement dated 31.07.2015; Directed respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation within six months and commence fresh acquisition proceedings within 90 days.

Shri.Veeranna S/O Basappa Sappadla Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.101023/2016 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SHRI.VEERANNA S/O BASAPPA SAPPADLA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O.B 402, CHEDDA HEIGHTS, BHANDUP (W) MUMBAI. REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BASAPPA S/O VEERBHADRAPPA SAPPADLA, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 179, MIG, 1 GANDHI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI.ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶13

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶14

3 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU.

¶15

4 . THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU.

¶18

5 . THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, DHARWAD.

¶19

6 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, DHARWAD.

¶20

7 . THE COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶21

..RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SHRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2, SHRI P.N.HATTI, ADV. FOR R3 TO R5, SHRI G.I.GACHCHINMATH, ADV FOR R6, SHRI UMESH C.AINAPUR, ADV. FOR R7, SHRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R7)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:31.07.2015, AT ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY THE 6th RESPONDENT, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6, TO PAY COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE LAND MEASURING 1120 SQ.FT. OF PLOT NO.10 CARVED OUT IN RS.NO.628/2B/2 SITUATED AT RENUKA NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO ALLOT A SITE IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED:06.10.2015, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 31.07.2015 in No. KIADB/Bhusva/Dha/Hu.v.Ni./Itaare/

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

625/15-16 at Annexure-L issued by the 6th respondent.

¶31

2) Issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents No 1, to 6, to pay compensation in respect of the remaining portion of the land measuring 1120 Sq.ft. of plot No.10 carved out in R.S.No .628/2B/2 situated at Renuka Nagar, Gokul Road, Hubballi,

¶32

3) Issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents No 7 to allot a site in terms of the representation dated 06.10.2015 produced at Annexure-N.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the owner of the entire property in R.S.No.628/2B/2 measuring 3520 sq. ft. situated at Renuka Nagar, Gokul Road, Hubballi. Out of the said plot, an area of 2401 sq. ft. was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of expansion of the Hubballi airport and a balance of 1120 sq. ft. was left out with the dimensions of 12 X 80 feet.

¶34

The petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents to acquire the remaining portion of the plot and pay compensation or grant a site against the acquisition of the said plot since the

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

balance area of 1120 sq. ft. with the dimensions of 12 X 80 feet could not be put to any use by the petitioner. Since the respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.82010/2013 wherein this Court vide order dated 12.09.2013 had directed for the said representation to be considered. The petitioner submitted a further representation on 13.09.2013 which also was not considered. The petitioner repeatedly followed up the respondents for the aforesaid relief. However, the same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner got issued a notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon the respondents to do the needful.

¶37

It is at this stage, that the 6^th respondent issued a communication to the 5^th respondent on 06.06.2015 stating that the notification as regards the acquired land had already been issued and the land acquired had been handed over to the 5^th

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

respondent and as such, the 5^th respondent was requested to take suitable action and issue necessary intimation to the petitioner.

¶40

On 31.07.2015, the 6^th respondent issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the 5^th respondent - Development Officer and Executive Engineer of Karnataka industrial Area Development Board had submitted a report on 24.06.2015 stating that the construction of the compound wall is completed and transferred to the Airport Authorities. As such, neither the 6^th respondent nor the 5^th respondent would be able to consider the request and/or representation made by the petitioner.

¶41

In the meanwhile, the 7^th respondent – Hubli Dharwad Development Corporation had issued a letter dated 24.09.2015 seeking the petitioner's consent for allotment of sites since sites were being allotted to various land owners on acquisition of their property for the expansion of Hubballi

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

Airport. A representation was submitted on 06.10.2015 in that regard. It is in the above background that the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.

¶44

Shri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he does not press prayer No. (3) i.e., the request for a mandamus directing the 7^th respondent to allot a site. Hence, no reliefs are sought for against the 7^th respondent. That leaves the Court to consider and decide prayer Nos.(1) and (2) herein.

¶45

Shri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only on account of the 1^st respondent partially acquiring the land of the petitioner that the remaining portion has been rendered useless. The petitioner being incapable of using the said land measuring 12 X 80 ft. had requested the same to be acquired and compensation to be paid for the said land. Despite

¶46

: 7 :

¶47

the several requests made, no action has been taken by the respondents and as such, the aforesaid reliefs have been claimed.

¶48

Shri G.I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondents No.6 – The Special Land Acquisition Officer, would submit that the expansion of the Hubballi Airport is completed and the compound wall constructed and as such, the land measuring 12 X 80 ft. could not be of any benefit to the Airport and as such, the State cannot be directed to acquire the land and/or make payment of compensation as regards the land which would not be of any use to the State.

¶49

Shri P.N.Hatti, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 adopts the arguments of Shri G.I.Gachchinmath, and additionally submits that the claim of the petitioner ought to have been raised at the time of acquisition itself and not belatedly as sought to be done now and on these

¶50

: 8 :

¶51

grounds, he submits that the writ petition has to be dismissed.

¶52

Shri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the acquisition has been carried in terms of the requirement submitted by the Airport Authorities and if the Airport Authorities had requested for more land, the same would have been acquired and as such, the State cannot be found fault with.

¶53

Heard Shri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.N.Hatti, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, Shri G.I.Gachchinmath, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Shri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

¶54

: 9 :

¶55

In the light of the aforesaid arguments which have been advanced, the short question to be answered by this Court would be:

¶56

Whether merely because a portion of the land is not required for the acquiring Authority could the land owner be deprived of compensation for the left out land which has been rendered useless on account of the acquisition?

¶57

Admittedly, the petitioner owned 3520 sq. ft. of land in Plot No.10 in R.S.No.628/2B/2 out of which 2401 sq. ft. was acquired retaining an area of 1120 sq. ft. with the petitioner with a measurement of 12 X 80 feet. It is clearly apparent on the said dimensions itself that the property cannot be put to any use since the width of the property is 12 feet and the length of the property is 80 feet. This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that no plan sanction could be granted in respect of such a land since no set backs could be left out for any construction.

¶58

: 10 :

¶59

The only contention of the respondents is that the land left out is of no use to the respondents and for the Airport Authorities and further that the petitioner ought to have raised this issue at the time of acquisition itself. It is clear from the acquisition proceedings that the dimensions of the land which was acquired was not clear and what was indicated was 2401 sq. ft. of land would be acquired. Hence, the petitioner could not at that time know the exact dimension of the land acquired and the land which would be left out.

¶60

Be that as it may. Even at that point of time, the petitioner had submitted a representation followed up with a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.82010/2013 seeking for acquisition of the balance land and grant of compensation wherein though a mandamus was issued, no action has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner has been following up with the respondents for the

¶61

: 11 :

¶62

acquisition and awardal of compensation but again no action has been taken in relation there to and it is only by the impugned endorsement at AnnexureL dated 31.07.2015 that the 6^th respondent has stated that the compound wall has already been constructed and therefore, the property is not required.

¶63

A perusal of the photographs relating to the compound wall which has been constructed would also indicate that there is no application of mind whatsoever in the acquisition proceedings since the compound wall has also not been built in a straight line but in right angle with an offset. If at all the compound wall had been built in a straight line without any offset, the property of the petitioner could also had been acquired and be made part of the Airport thus entitling the respondents, more particularly, the Airport to make use of the land.

¶64

: 12 :

¶65

The contention of the respondents that since the compound wall has been built and the land would not be useful to the respondents the claim for compensation is required to be rejected. It is one thing to say that the land is not useful to the authorities and it is another thing to say that the land owner even if he cannot use the land for his own benefit cannot be granted compensation.

¶66

In the present case, it is only on account of the acquisition resorted by the respondents that the petitioner’s land has been rendered useless. If at all, the respondents had not acquired the land or part of the land, the petitioner would have been entitled to and been able to use his entire plot. Since the cause and effect is directly attributable to the respondents, the respondents in my considered opinion cannot now shirk from their responsibility of awarding of compensation as regards the land of the petitioner which has been rendered useless on

¶67

: 13 :

¶68

account of the acquisition. What is required to be compensated is the loss caused to the landowner, which has no relation to the use to which the acquiring authority were to put the acquired land to.

¶69

In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued quashing the endorsement dated 31.07.2015 issued by the 6^th respondent at Annexure-L. A mandamus is issued directing respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation in respect of the remaining portion of the land measuring 1120 feet on Plot No.10 carved out of R.S.No.628/2B/2 measuring 3520 sq. ft. situated at Renuka Nagar, Gokul Road, Hubblli, within a period of six months from today since the above situation has arisen out of complete non application of mind on the part of the respondents and/or the Airport Authorities and rendering the remaining land of the Petitioner useless.

¶70

: 14 :

¶71

The acquisition proceedings are to be commenced and completed as per the law applicable as on today with the issuance of a fresh Notification within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he consents to the acquisition and that he would submit all necessary documents to the 6^th respondent –SLAO within a period of 15 days of the publication of the acquisition Notification under Section 28 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, followed by Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Authority, is placed on record.

¶72

The respondents are directed to calculate the compensation amount as per the current law applicable in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within a period of 30 days after the date on

¶73

: 15 :

¶74

which the consent is submitted by the petitioner herein.

¶75

Respondent Nos.1 to 6 will act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for certified copy thereof. If respondents 1 to 6 have any doubt about the order, he/she may verify the contents of the order from the website of this Court and/or from their respective counsels appearing for them in this matter.

¶76

[Sd/-] JUDGE

¶77

Jm/-

Shri.Veeranna S/O Basappa Sappadla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Veeranna S/O Basappa Sappadla 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar S/O Vanechand Bafna Vs the Commissioner

Shri.Golayya Shivayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Shree.Annapurneshwari Stree Shakti Sangha Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sunshine Sealings Industries Vs Canara Bank

Basappa S/O. Channaveerappa Uppin Vs Virabhadrappa S/O. Channaveerappa Uppin

Ramasa S/O Parashuram Pawar Vs State of Karnataka