Disposed

Sri.Oba Reddy Suresh S/O Oba Reddy Siddanagouda v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2021WP/112056/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to conclude proceedings by notifying and hearing rival claims within three months and not to disburse compensation until a decision is taken.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude proceedings by hearing rival claims within three months and restrain disbursement of compensation until a decision is taken.

Sri.Oba Reddy Suresh S/O Oba Reddy Siddanagouda Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.112056/2019 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI.OBA REDDY SURESH, S/O OBA REDDY SIDDANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HARAGINA DONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI T.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, OPPOSITE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, DAVANAGERE.

¶12

SMT.CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE OBA REDDY JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HARAGINA DONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI. BASAVANA GOUDA S/O LATE OBA REDDY JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, R/O: HARAGINA DONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK and DISTRICT.

¶14

¶15

SRI. THIMMANA GOUDA S/O LATE OBA REDDY JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS, R/O: HARAGINA DONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK and DISTRICT.

¶16

SMT.KAMALAXI W/O THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS, R/O: JANAKUNTE VILLAGE, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶17

MT.DATTESHWARI W/O RAJASHEKHAR GOWDA AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, R/O: SANGANAKALLU ROAD, NEAR K.E.B., BALLARI.

¶18

SMT.VENKAMMA W/O OBA REDDY SIDDANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT: 76 YEARS, R/O: HARAGINA DONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK and DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT.MANGALAMMA W/O POMPANNA AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, R/O: HARAGINA DONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK and DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT.LAKSHMI W/O POMAPANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, D/O OBA REDDY CHANNABASAPPA, R/O: DHARMASAGARA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 7 & 9)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.05.2019 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDING PURSUANT THERETO VIDE PROCEEDINGS NO.IN KIADB/BHOO SWA(2)/DAA/111/2019-20 INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; BY A WRIT IN

¶24

¶25

THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECT THE RESPONDENT 1 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2019, VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM OVER THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS BEARING SY.NO.155 MEASURING 1 ACRES 20 CENTS AND SY.NO.160A MEASURING 6 ACRES 04 CENTS TOTALLY MEASURING 7 ACRES 24 CENTS SITUATED AT HARAGINADONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought

¶29

for the following reliefs:

¶30

i. Quash the notice dated 21.05.2019 and all further proceeding pursuant thereto vide proceedings No.in KIADB/Bhoo Swa(2)/Daa/111/2019-20 initiated by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H.

¶31

ii. By a writ in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent 1 to take appropriate action on the representation dated 3.5.2019, vide Annexure-G, in respect of his claim over the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.155 measuring 1 acres 20 cents and Sy.No.160A measuring 6 acres 04

¶32

¶33

cents totally measuring 7 acres 24 cents situated at Haraginadoni village, Ballari taluk and district.

¶34

iii. Issue any other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶37

In addition to reiterating the various

¶38

contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the Notice at Annexure-H dated 21.05.2019 issued by respondent No.1/SLAO will indicate that even after issuance of the said notice, the SLAO has not passed any award and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/SLAO,

¶41

KIADB submits that respondent No.1 would consider the rival claims of both petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6, 9 and LRs of respondent No.8 and hear them and take appropriate decision including passing of award in accordance with law.

¶42

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submission made at the bar, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of rival contentions of petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6, 9 and LRs of respondent No.8, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondent No.1/SLAO to conclude the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-H dated 21.05.2019 after notifying and hearing both petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6, 9 and LRs of respondent No.8 and considering their objections and documents in accordance with law within a period of

¶43

¶44

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

It is directed that till the respondent

¶46

No.1/SLAO considers the rival claim of petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6, 9 and LRs of respondent No.8 and takes appropriate decision in that regard as stated supra, respondent No.1 shall not disburse the compensation amount in favour of any of the parties.

¶47

SD JUDGE

¶48

CLK

Sri.Oba Reddy Suresh S/O Oba Reddy Siddanagouda v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Oba Reddy Suresh S/O Oba Reddy Siddanagouda v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

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

Smt.Veena W/O. Mahantesh Vs Assistant Commissioner

Shri.Shankargoud S/O Ramangouda Vs Managing Director

The Housing Commissioner Vs Smt.Analabai W/O Basalingappa Ballari

Sri Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mumatazbegum W/O Babusab Jamadar Vs Vazirsab S/O Dadamiya Jamadar