Partly allowed

Ramesh Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021WP/49155/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed land acquisition notifications initiated in 1979 due to a 40-year lapse in proceedings, deeming them abandoned. However, the notification for 1 gunta used for road construction was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of acquisition notifications for 33 guntas; upholding notification for 1 gunta utilized for road with claim for compensation granted.

Ramesh Nayak 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 FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.49155/2017 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Ramesh Nayak, Age about 40 years, S/o Late Kulla Nayaka, Grand Son of Godaiah, Residing at Attimarada Street, Kalkunike, Hunsur Taluk & Town, Mysore District - 571 105. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Sameer S.N., Advocate)

¶10

AND :

¶11

The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary Revenue Department, M.S. Building, Bangalore - 560 001.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore - 571 101.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur, Mysore District - 571 105.

¶14

¶15

Town Muncipal Council, Town Muncipality, Hunsur Town, By its Chief Officer/Secretary - 571 105.

¶16

(By Sri Y.D. Harsha, AGA for R1 to R3; R4 is deleted v/o dated 08.02.2021)

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary and final notification dated 18.12.1979 published in gazette on January 31.01.1990 at R-2 Annexure-A in respect of petitioner land is concerned vide Sy. No.50, situated at Kalkunake Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk measuring 33 guntas of land and etc.

¶18

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner claims to be the grandson of Late Godaiah, who is stated to be the owner in possession and cultivation of the land bearing Sy. No.50 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas of Kalkunake Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk. It is submitted that out of the said extent of land belonging to the grandfather of the petitioner, an extent of 33 guntas was proposed for acquisition by the 2^nd respondent and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was passed on 18.12.1979.

¶21

¶22

It is submitted that though final notification was

¶23

passed, subsequently, no proceedings have been initiated to proceed with the acquisition by the respondents. It is submitted that in light of the absence of any action taken for more than about 40 years, as on date, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been abandoned as the authorities have not taken any action within a reasonable period of time. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court relating to the same notification in respect of neighbouring lands in W.P.No. 23470/2004 and also in W.P.No.6074/2002 wherein the acquisition proceedings have been set aside and the notifications have been quashed.

¶24

As per the communication by the Assistant Commissioner to the learned Additional Government Advocate, it also comes out that the notification as regards other lands have also been quashed as per the order passed in W.P.No.31012/1996 and has been confirmed in W.A.No.3254/1997. It is, however, submitted that an

¶25

¶26

extent of 1 gunta of land in Sy. No.50 belonging to the petitioner has been utilised for the purpose of road and hence, the said extent of 1 gunta, which is the subject matter of the notification ought to be protected while necessary orders may be passed, as per law as regards the remaining land.

¶27

Taking note of the orders passed in other writ petitions with respect to the land owners who are similarly situated as that of petitioner and taking note of the absence of conclusion of land acquisition proceedings despite the same having been initiated in the year 1979, clearly there is an abandonment of acquisition. Taking note of the orders passed in W.P.No.23470/2004, W.P.No.6074/2002, W.P.No.31012/1996 and the judgment in W.A.No.3254/1997, the notifications insofar as the

¶28

petitioner's land is concerned are quashed while making it clear, on the basis of submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification is to be upheld only with respect to an extent of 1 gunta, stated to

¶29

¶30

have been made use of for the purpose of formation of road as made out in the communication addressed by the Assistant Commissioner to the learned Additional Government Advocate, the acquisition with respect to the extent of 1 gunta is upheld.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off . It is further clarified that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation as regards the extent of 1 gunta stated to have been utilised for the purpose of formation of road, as per law.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Ramesh Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Nayak 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

M/S Trinco Property Vs Mr. N.R. Sumanth Kumar

Rahim Khan Vs H Mushtari Jan

Ruptub Solutions Private Limited Vs Radhe Shyam Gautam HUF

Saudi Telecom Company Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. R. Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Thotada Narasegowda Vs the State of Karnataka by Its