Disposed

Singrigowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021WP/6468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider representations for compensation regarding land utilized for public works. The single-judge bench directed the respondents to pass orders on the grievances within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 4 to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representations within three months of receipt of this order.

Singrigowda Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

W.P NO.6468/2021 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SINGRIGOWDA, S/O. SINGRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O: PURADAKOPPALU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS, B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

4. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; R4 - SERVED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO R-4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE - L SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE ALTERNATE SITE OF THE SAME MEASUREMENT OR DIRECT THEM TO GIVE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITITONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO FAIR AND COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARECNY IN LAND ACQUISITON REHABILITATON AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 FOR HAVING UTILISED THE LAND.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction by issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus directing consideration of a representation dated 03.03.2015.

¶23

Heard Sri. Chandrashekar H. B., learned

¶24

counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Nithyananda

¶25

¶26

K.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶27

The brief facts leading to the filing of petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶28

The petitioner claims to be a recipient of the Hakku Patra in his favour and pursuant to which possession was handed over of the subject property on 19.07.1988 from the hands of the respondent No.4 - Commissioner, Mandya District. Khata also transferred in the name of the petitioner on 29.08.1988 on the strength of the aforesaid Hakku Patra.

¶29

It transpires that in the year 2012, on 08.02.2012, respondent No.4 - Commissioner without initiating any acquisition proceedings, utilized the property of the petitioner for construction of Anganwadi School and Sulabh Shouchalaya. The petitioner gave a representation on 28.06.2012 seeking compensation for

¶30

¶31

the usage of the property belonging to the petitioner for public purpose.

¶32

The said representation though was given on 03.03.2015 has not met its consideration at the hands of respondent No.4.

¶33

Learned counsel also has appended a representation given on 05.07.2020 to the writ petition reiterating his earlier representation, which is also not been considered by the respondent.

¶34

I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.4, who is served on 03.04.2021 and has not taken any steps to get himself unrepresented before this Court, to pass appropriate orders on the representation given by the petitioner on 03.03.2015 and 05.07.2020 as could be seen from the Annexures - L and N to the writ petition.

¶35

¶36

8. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh

¶37

representation as well, to the hands of respondent No.4 to redress his grievance as is sought in the writ petition. If a representation is given by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, respondent No.4 will pass appropriate orders considering the grievance of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within three months thereafter.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

VBS Ct: ssp

Singrigowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singrigowda 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

M/S. Trilokesh Smart Homes Vs M/S. Glenloch Properties LLP

Mr Madhava Koodlu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nina Susanna Varghese Vs State by White Field Police Station

Sri. Shrikantegowda. D. L. Vs the President

Hemalatha Vs Aro Bbmp

Sri H Vishwanath Vs the Commissioner