Disposed

M.Narayanswamy S/O. Lingappa @ Ningappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021WP/108748/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a road widening project without prior compensation. Petitioner sought directions to adhere to acquisition proceedings. Court disposed of the petition observing road formation could use acquired lands without disturbing petitioner's possession.

What did the court decide?

Disposed; respondents may form road on acquired lands without disturbing petitioner's possession.

M.Narayanswamy S/O. Lingappa @ Ningappa Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.108748/2018 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

M.NARAYANSWAMY S/O LINGAPPA, @ NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.200/10, KAMPLI, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BELLARI.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-1.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

¶15

THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KAMPLI, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST; BALLARI.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.VIDYAVATI K, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI VINAYAK S.KULKARNI AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

¶18

¶19

(BY SRI B.SHARANABASAVA, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶20

This WRIT PETITION is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ADHERE TO THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS, GRANT COMPENSATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING THE ROAD WIDENING PROJECT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶21

This WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

: ORDER :

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to adhere to the acquisition proceedings granting compensation before implementing the road widening project in respect of property of the petitioner specified in the petition schedule.

¶24

2. The petition schedule property is as follows:

¶25

The open site which is part and parcel of the house situated around the house excluding Northern side bearing Door No.130 of 18^th ward (new Door No.200/100) in Kampli Hospet Taluk and which is totally measuring 76 feet East-West and 68 feet North-South and bounded as follows:

¶26

To the East : Tayamma Temple and property of late Pomapanna.

¶27

¶28

To the West : Road. To the North : Room Belongs to Temple and House of K.Basha. To the South : Gangavathi Main Road.

¶29

Heard learned counsel Sri

¶30

G.I.Gachchinamath, appearing for petitioner, Smt.Vidyavati K, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri B.Sharanabasava learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the writ papers.

¶31

At the out set Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has filed a memo stating that the respondents are forming the road only in the lands which have been acquired for the purpose of formation of road and they are not using the property of the petitioner which is mentioned in the petition schedule.

¶32

In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with an observation that the respondents can form the road on the lands acquired for the said purpose without disturbing the possession of the petition schedule property.

¶33

¶34

If the 4^th respondent wants to form the road

¶35

in the property of the petitioner, he can utilize the same

¶36

after acquiring the same as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

M.Narayanswamy S/O. Lingappa @ Ningappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Narayanswamy S/O. Lingappa @ Ningappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Saroja W/O Shivanand Kolli Vs Shivanand S/O Rangareddi Kolli

Shri Kanchaneshwari Mahila Souhard Sahakari Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivananda Ramchandra Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Colaco Amanda Blanche, Vs State of Karnataka

Labed Veerappa, Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Tayappa Ramappa Lamani Vs the Government of Karnataka