Partly allowed

Sri. Krishna Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021WP/10722/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking alternative land displaced by KRS Dam challenged Tahasildar rejection. Court quashed endorsement, directing Deputy Commissioner to reconsider application within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; impugned endorsement quashed with liberty to approach Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration within four weeks; authority to decide within four months.

Sri. Krishna Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.10722/2021 (KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

¶9

Sri. Krishna Shetty, Aged about 60 years, S/o late Era Shetty, R/at Hosaramanahally Village, Bolanahally Post, Bilikere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 107.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(By Sri. B.S.Nagaraj, Adv.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

¶14

The State of Karnataka, Represented by Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar veedhi, Bengaluru - 560 001.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru – 570 001.

¶16

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur Town – 571 105. Mysuru District.

¶18

The Thasildar, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.

¶19

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kabini Reservoir Project-2, 1^st Floor MUDA Complex, Ramakrishna Nagar (I) Block, Near Andolana Circle, Mysuru – 570 022.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By Sri.A.R.Srinivasa, AGA for R1 to R4)

¶22

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the endorsement dated 16.11.2018 made in Ref. issued by the R-4, Thasildar, rejected the application made by the petitioner for grant of land in Sy.No.14.54.75 to 79 of Thondal Village, Hunsur Tq . the true copy of the said endorsement is submitted herewith at Annexures-A and etc.

¶24

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing through Video Conferencing this day, the Court passed the following;

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶27

petitioner would not press the petition as against the

¶28

¶29

respondent No. 5 as the petitioner is only aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 16.11.2018 issued by the respondent No. 4. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, are heard for final disposal of the writ petition.

¶30

The Petitioner’s case is that the petitioner and his family members relocated to Hosa Rammanahalli village, Hunsur taluk after their lands in Hale Rammanahalli village, Mysuru taluk were submerged by the back waters of KRS Dam. The petitioner was granted land measuring 3 acres in survey No. 33 of Kuppe-Kolagatta village, but this land was made over by the State Government to the defense for the purpose of establishment of Electronic Warfare – Range. The petitioner submitted the application as per Annexure-A1 with the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District for grant of alternative land. The Tahasildar, Hunasur taluk, Mysuru

¶31

¶32

district (the respondent No. 4) has rejected this application by the impugned Endorsement dated 16.11.2018.

¶33

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶34

the impugned endorsement is impermissible in law in view of the fact that the petitioner has lost his land even without payment of any compensation. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. Nos. 17992-18001/2018 has disposed of the writ petitions quashing the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar observing that a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of alternative site must be taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the observations made by this Court in W.P. Nos. 17992-18001/2018 in paragraph No. 3 which reads as under:

¶35

“3. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, it is noted that respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner has not rejected the requests made by petitioners herein. He in fact has referred the matter to respondent no.4Tahsildar to ascertain as to whether petitioners could

¶36

¶37

be granted certain extent of land in view of what had been granted earlier to them and which was utilized by the Defence Department. It is in that context, that endorsements at Annexures-A1 to A10 have been issued. In the circumstances, petitioners would have to once again approach respondent no.2 bringing to the notice of the said authority, endorsements issued by respondent no.4-Tahsildar, so that respondent no.2 could apply his mind to those endorsements and having regard to the fact that petitioners were earlier granted certain extent of lands on account of their displacement due to submergence of their lands on account of construction of KRS Dam, alternative extent of lands would have to be granted to them in accordance with law."

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the light of this decision, and because the petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioners in the other set of writ petitions, the petition could be disposed of quashing the impugned endorsement with liberty to the petitioner to approach the second respondent for consideration of his

¶39

¶40

application in accordance with law. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that as the petitioner could be similarly placed as petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1799218001/2018 and the petitioner’s application is also rejected by the Tahasildar, the petition could be disposed of quashing the impugned endorsement dated 16.11.2018 with similar liberty as reserved by this Court in the earlier writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 17992-18001/2018. Therefore, the following;

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

[a] The Petition is allowed in part and the impugned endorsement dated 16.11.2018 is quashed with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation with the second respondent – the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru district, bringing to the notice of the said authority the request for alternative land and for a decision on the representation in accordance with law.

¶43

¶44

[b] The Petitioner shall be at liberty to make such representation before the second respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

[c] The second respondent shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law and inform the same to the petitioner expeditiously but within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶46

SD/JUDGE.

¶47

LRS.

Sri. Krishna Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishna Shetty 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

K L Srihari Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S R. K. Infra (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary

M/S Sharada Vidyaniketan Vs Thubarahalli Founhdation Trust

Sri T Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Sekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka