Disposed

Shivanna @ K J Shivanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2021WP/2573/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a petitioner challenging the acquisition of land under the KIADB Act sought compensation. The court directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation regarding his interest in the land and reserved the final order for disposal after considering such representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file detailed representation on interest in the land within four weeks for further disposal after consideration by the Special Land Acquisition Officer within six months.

Shivanna @ K J Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2573/2021 (LA – KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVANNA @ K.J. SHIVANNA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGE ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT RAMAMANDIR ROAD, KOORGALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK - 570 018.

¶9

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT’S SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HEAD OFFICE AT 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS

¶13

¶14

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE - 18

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME OF ACQUISITION IN SO FAR AS LAND BEARING SY. NO.96/384 MEASURING 30 GUNTAS OF KOORGAHALLI VILLAGE, ILAVAL HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK PASSED UNDER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF KIADB ACT DATED 18.03.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND UNDER FINAL NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIADB ACT DATED 05.12.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION IS LAPSED AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No.96/38 4 measuring 30 guntas of Koorgahalli Village, Ilaval Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶22

¶23

The petitioner submits that land was granted to him and saguvali chit was issued in his name and copy of the same is produced at Annexure-A.

¶24

It is further submitted that pursuant to the said grant, revenue entries were mutated in his name as per Annexure-B. The copy of the grant certificate is enclosed at Annexure-A. It is submitted that subsequently proceedings under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 were initiated with respect to the land in Sy.No.96/38 4 of Koorgahalli Village.

¶25

It is however submitted that no compensation has been paid to the petitioner despite he being interested person and posses title with respect to the said land.

¶26

It is further submitted that in the case of similarly situated persons tracing their title through grants in Sy.No.96 orders were passed by this Court in W.P.No.35735/2019 dated 18.01.2021 and the grievance of the petitioner will stand redressed if similar order is passed on the principle of parity.

¶27

¶28

It is further submitted that other prayers at prayer a, b and c would not survive for consideration, in light of the petitioner restricting his claim to the award of appropriate compensation.

¶29

Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel

¶30

appearing for respondent-KIADB submits that right of the petitioner is a matter to be ascertained in appropriate proceedings as large number of land owners claim rights by way of grants in Sy.No.99 and that originally land belongs to the Government, which fact needs to be taken note of.

¶31

It is further submitted that interest of the land

¶32

owner in the said extent of land is to be ascertained and only subsequent to which orders could be passed as regards to his claim of compensation, if he is found to be entitled.

¶33

Suffice it to state that despite the lands originally being Government lands if the petitioner has been granted land by way of grant orders as is evident at

¶34

¶35

Annexure-A and revenue entries have been effected in his name, it is for the respondents to take note of such legal title as made out subject to such further enquiry as may be necessary and after coming to an appropriate conclusion regarding the legal interest of the petitioner by way of grants, to consider the representation for payment of compensation in an appropriate manner.

¶36

The petitioner to file his detailed representation with supporting documents within a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of this petition.

¶37

Upon receipt of such representation respondent No.3 to dispose of such representation expeditiously within a period not later than six months thereafter, in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Shivanna @ K J Shivanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanna @ K J Shivanna v. 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. Nagarathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Devamma Vs State of Karnataka

M.C.Raghavanka Vs Union of India

Mohammed Iqbal Vs the State of Karnataka

M Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmanappa Vs the State of Karnataka