High Court quashed notices issued under the Land Revenue Act attaching petitioners' properties for recovery of enhanced compensation due to land acquisition by KIADB, holding petitioners not liable.
Impugned notices dated November 2016 issued by the 4th respondent attaching petitioners' properties were quashed.
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 DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No.109791/2016 c/w WP Nos.101053-101054/2017 (KLR,RR/SUR)
WP No.109791/2016
Between
Sri Vijay s/o Padmanabha Dharaneppanavar, Age 51 years Occ: Business, R/o Hosur, Hubli. ...Petitioner
(By Sri V M Sheelavant, Advocate)
A n d
2
3
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order which has been passed by respondent No.2 through order dated 29.9.2016 which is at Annexure-F and the notice issued by respondent No.4 dated -11.2016 at Annexure-E insofar as petitioner is concerned.
WP Nos.101053-101054/2017
Between
Smt.Drakshyani w/o RAchappa Hatrote Age 79 years, Occ: Household & Agril R/o.`Kumar Nilaya’ Deshpande Nagar HUbballi, Dist: Dharwad.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Dinesh M Kulkarni, Advocate)
4
A n d
5
6
Sri Bhuashan Kulkarni, Advocate for R6, Sri Pruthvi K S, Advocate for R-19, R7 – R18 served)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by respondent No.2 vide order No.RRC/VAHI/15/2016-17 dated 29.9.2016 vide Annexure-E and notice issued by respondent No.4 dated 24.11.2016 at Annexure-F insofar as petitioner is concerned.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in `B’ Group this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar,
the same are takenup together and disposed of by common order.
respondents No.7 and 18 was acquired for the purpose of formation of housing sites in favour of respondent No.19 – Society. Thereafter respondent No.19 – Society formed housing sites and allotted the same in favour of its various members. After plots were allotted to the members of the Society of respondent No.19, the land in question was acquired by respondent No.5-KIADB for the benefit of respondent No.6-
7
Airport Authority. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of acquired land in question and thereafter the market value of the land in question was enhanced by the Reference Court.
8
impugned notices. Hence, they submit that the impugned notices issued by the Tahsidlar require to be quashed.
9
counsel for the parties.
10
passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation instructed the 4th respondent – Tahsildar to attach the properties belonging to petitioners, who are children of the office bearers of respondent No.19 – Society. In turn, the 4th respondent without issuing notice to the petitioners has issued the impugned notices attaching the properties belonging to the petitioners under Section 162 of the Land Revenue Act for recovering the enhanced compensation by treating it as arrears of land revenue.
11
revenue is in violation of principles of natural justice and also one without authority of law.
notices issued by the 4th respondent - Tahsidlar require to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
bkm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether notices issued by the Tahsildar under Section 162 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 for attaching properties of petitioners to recover enhanced compensation are in violation of natural justice and
Whether petitioners, who are children of society office bearers, are liable to pay enhanced compensation to Airport Authority instead of KIADB.
Whether the impugned notices attaching properties for recovery of enhanced compensation require to be quashed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vijay s/o Padmanabha Dharaneppanavar
Drakshyani w/o RAchappa Hatrote
State of Karnataka
Deputy Commissioner, D C Compound, Dharwad
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
