Allowed

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O. Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2022WP/100586/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the Railway Board's communication offering lump-sum payment to a land loser, directing reconsideration of his application for Group 'D' post gazettement under the earlier 2010 Circular pending at the time.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication quashed and respondent directed to reconsider appointment application under Circular dated 16.07.2010.

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O. Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100586 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100586 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. GADIGEPPA S/O. MUTTAPPA HANAMAR @ KURI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. SULIKERI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN-587205

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT DIST. BAGALKO, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, PIN-587104

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, PIN-587104

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAVAN, RAISINA MARG, NEW DELHI-110011

¶17

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.M.B.KANAVI, ADV. FOR R4 AND R5)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SPEAKING ORDER / ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SWR / P.268 / 269 / LAND LOSERS (VOL.II) DATED 14/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5, VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶21

¶22

WP No. 100586 of 2022

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy. No.39/3 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas situated at Sulikeri Village of Badami Taluk, Bagalakote District, out of which 15 guntas of land was acquired by the respondent No.3 for the purpose of formation of Kudachi Railway Project and an award was passed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Ministry of Railways has issued a Circular dated 16.07.2010 for appointment to the land losers, who have been affected by land acquisition for railway project.

¶26

In the light of the Circular dated 16.07.2010, the Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice under Section 12(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 awarding total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and a note was appended to the said notice stating that the petitioner is entitled for appointment in Group `D’ post in the Railway Department. Since the petitioner was not provided with an employment, he was constrained to approach this Court in Writ Petition Nos.110362-363/2019. This Court by order dated 03.08.2021, disposed of the writ petitions directing the respondents to consider the representations

¶27

¶28

WP No. 100586 of 2022

¶29

submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the 5^th respondent issued the impugned communication dated 14.10.2021 stating that the Circular dated 28.09.2010 is superseded by the Circular dated 11.11.2019 which provides a lumpsum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the affected families, who were primarily dependant on the acquired land for livelihood. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶31

submits that as on the date when the applications were filed, the Circular dated 16.07.2010 was in force and as such, the applications submitted by the petitioner was required to be considered in the light of Circular dated 16.07.2010. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Vijayalakshmi and others vs. Town Planning Member and another¹ .

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Circular dated 16.07.2010 was superseded by Circular dated 11.11.2019 which specifies

¶33

1 (2006) 8 SCC 502

¶34

¶35

WP No. 100586 of 2022

¶36

that the land losers are entitled for lumpsum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and in terms of the said Circular, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment to the post of group ‘D’ in the Railway Department. Hence, the impugned communication issued by the Railway Department is strictly in accordance with the Circular dated 16.07.2010 and does not warrant any interference.

¶37

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶38

It is undisputed that the proceedings initiated for acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner culminated in passing the award dated 23.09.2013. The petitioner in terms of the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the Circular dated 16.07.2010, submitted the application with the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to provide them appointment in group ‘D’ post in the Railway Department. As on the date when the award was passed and also the application was submitted by the petitioner, the Circular dated

¶39

16.07.2010 was in force. In the case of T.Vijayalakshmi and

¶40

others (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the

¶41

¶42

WP No. 100586 of 2022

¶43

application for grant of permission for construction of the building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the date of the said permission is granted. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 were under an obligation to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the Circular dated 16.07.2010 which was in force and not the Circular dated 11.11.2019, which superseded the earlier Circular. As per the Circular dated 16.07.2010, the petitioner was entitled for appointment in group ‘D’ post in the Railway Department.

¶44

The petitioner was also issued with the land losers certificate dated 27.05.2014 in terms of the Circular dated 16.07.2010. Hence, the impugned communication issued by the 5^th respondent is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The writ petition is allowed.

¶47

The impugned communication dated 11.2.2020 issued by the 5^th respondent vide Annexure-K is hereby quashed.

¶48

¶49

WP No. 100586 of 2022

¶50

The respondent No.5 is hereby directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment in group ‘D’ post in the Railway Department in the light of the Circular dated 16.07.2010 at Annexure-B and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

RSH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O. Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O. Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri 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

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Suresh S/O Kalappa Kammar Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi Vs State of Karnataka

Subhash S/O. Rangappa Kolli Vs the Deputy Director of

Suresh S/O Ishwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhima Kallappa Waghmode Vs the State of Karnataka