Allowed

Shri. Arun Navali S/O Venkanna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022WP/103464/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an endorsement denying compensation at fixed rates after the petitioner demonstrated a 2013 request for such rates, directing authorities to pay within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and award dated 24.02.2018 and 26.03.2016 are quashed; respondents directed to pay compensation at the committee's fixed rates within three months.

Shri. Arun Navali S/O Venkanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 103464 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103464 OF 2018 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
VISHAL PATTIHAL
NINGAPPA Location:
PATTIHAL Dharwad
Date:
2022.12.07
10:27:37
+0530

¶10

SHRI. ARUN NAVALI S/O VENKANNA AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CHIKKAVEERAYYANAVAR PLOT, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M.. VANTI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RDCL., RAYAPUR, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH AGA FOR R1; SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CORRESPONDENCE DATED:24.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-"J" & etc.,

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP No. 103464 of 2018

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the

¶24

communication dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure-J).

¶25

By the said communication, it is stated that the petitioner had been issued with a notice dated 11.05.2016 calling upon him to agree for A consent award and since he did not respond, his present request for granting him compensation at the rate of 6,250/- per sq.ft. by way of consent agreement Could not be considered.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents submits

¶27

that as a matter of fact a general award has been passed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo and along with it enclosed a representation dated 31.01.2013, whereby the petitioner had requested for payment of compensation by way of a consent agreement at the rates determined by the price fixation committee. The said letter indicates that all the documents that were

¶29

¶30

WP No. 103464 of 2018

¶31

required for processing the request had also been enclosed. The Xerox copy produced also contains an acknowledgement by the KRDCL to the effect that the representation was received on 31.01.2013.

¶32

Since the petitioner is stated to have made a specific request to grant him compensation at the rate fixed by the committee way back in the year 2013, the endorsement now issued stating that the petitioner had not responded to the notice and therefore, the compensation as determined by the committee could not be granted, cannot be sustained.

¶33

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was litigating with the brother of his vendor and the claim of the petitioner’s vendor’s brother has been rejected.

¶34

In view of the fact that the petitioner had requested the respondents to pay him compensation as per the rates fixed by the committee, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the award passed on

¶35

¶36

WP No. 103464 of 2018

¶37

26.03.2016 and the endorsement dated 24.02.2018, shall stand quashed.

¶38

The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner by paying the compensation at the rates fixed by the committee, as requested by him in his representation dated 31.01.2013 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶40

sd JUDGE

¶41

Vnp*

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94

Shri. Arun Navali S/O Venkanna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Arun Navali S/O Venkanna v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Ningappa S/O. Basappa Badiger Vs the Executive Engineer (Civil )

The Commissioner Vs Miss. Poorna N.K.

Sri. Maheshwar S/O Veerasangayya Hiremath Vs Sri. Chidananda S/O Durugundayya Hiremath

Shri. Veerbhadra S/O Odattappa Attimarad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Shivalingappa W/O Sangappa Hadapad Vs Sri.Rudrappa S/O Nagappa Hadapad

Tunga-Bhadra Grameena Education Society Vs the District Registrar