Disposed

Sri L Prakash v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022WP/11567/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing the Special Deputy Commissioner to consider representations regarding an alleged failure to pass an award and pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Respondent No.3) to consider the petitioners' representations dated 07.05.2022 and 21.05.2022 within four weeks.

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11567 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 11567 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI L PRAKASH S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SINCE LAKSHMAIAH, DECEASED ON 18-12-2021

¶10

SEETHARAMAIAH, S/O LATE DODDATHAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,

¶11

NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE DODDATHAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

ABOVE PETITIONERS ARE R/AT GANIGARA PALYA, HOSAHALLI REVENUE VILLAGE BANGALURU SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 109.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. SURESH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶19

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009

¶20

¶21

WP No. 11567 of 2022

¶22

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISWESHWARYA TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶23

EX-SERVICEMEN HOUSING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.652/B, 2ND FLOOR, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; SRI.K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.05.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE - H AND SECOND REPRESENTATION DATED 21.05.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE – J AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶30

following reliefs:

¶31

a) "Issue a writ of Mandamus or any writ or directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 07.05.2022 vide Annexure-H and second representation dated 21.05.2022 vide Annexure - J.

¶32

b) In the alternative direct the respondent's authorities to pay the compensation in accordance with the new Act of 2013

¶33

c) To grant any other relief deemed fit or the petitioners be found entitled to in the interest of

¶34

¶35

WP No. 11567 of 2022

¶36

justice, equity and good conscience along with costs of litigation.

¶37

d) Grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶38

The contention of the petitioners is that despite land of the petitioners having been acquired, no award has been passed and compensation made available to the petitioners.

¶39

Per contra, Sri K.R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that in earlier proceedings in WP.Nos.25169-25171/2010, this Court has considered this aspects and vide order dated 10.10.2012 has categorically taken into consideration that the sites which have been conveyed to the petitioners therein and compensation has been paid.

¶40

Thus, he submits that there is no purpose served by considering the representations which have already

¶41

¶42

WP No. 11567 of 2022

¶43

been answered by this Court in the aforesaid decision.

¶44

Whether there is an award which has been passed, whether there is a consent acquisition and whether the amounts awarded are in terms of the acquisition, is not for this Court to decide though there are various submissions which are made by both the counsels. It is for respondent No.3 to consider the representation and pass necessary orders as per the available documents and in accordance with law. Taking into account the decision of this Court in WP.Nos.25169-25171/2010 dated 10.10.2012.

¶45

Apart therefrom, various grounds which have been raised by the petitioners in the present matter as regards Section 11(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are to be determined. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same has been raised only to show

¶46

¶47

WP No. 11567 of 2022

¶48

that the award has not been passed and there is no challenge as regards the acquisition. The said submission is placed on record.

¶49

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶50

: ORDER :

¶51

a) writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

b) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation dated 07.05.2022 at Annexure–H and second representation dated 21.05.2022 at Annexure–J within a period of 4 weeks’ from today strictly in accordance with law as per the available documents.

¶53

c) Respondent No.4 is also permitted to participate in the said proceedings and submit such documents to the respondent No.4 to enable the respondent No.3 to pass necessary orders.

¶54

d) Respondents to act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for certified copy thereof. If respondents have any doubt about the order,

¶55

¶56

WP No. 11567 of 2022

¶57

respondents may verify the contents of the order from the website of this Court and or from the learned panel advocate appearing in the matter. The QR code on this order could also be scanned to view the website of the High Court to verify the order.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

KTY

Sri L Prakash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri L Prakash 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

Mr K N Surendra Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Sri H.A. Ankegowda Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bairamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Sampangappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nalina Bai Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri S L Raghavendra Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer