Allowed

Sri S L Raghavendra v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022WP/11658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed for quashing the Special Land Acquisition Officer's order rejecting a Section 18 application due to delay. The Court held the delay should be condoned due to the COVID-19 pandemic and directed the Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The rejection order (Annexure-F) was quashed; the Officer directed to refer the Section 18 application to the Civil Court within eight weeks.

Sri S L Raghavendra Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11658 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. 11658 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI S L RAGHAVENDRA

¶10

S/O LATE B.N. LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRINIVASA SAGARA,

¶11

KEREKALUHATTI, SIRA TOWN,

¶12

SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 137.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, ZONAL OFFICE, MARUTHI TOWERS, 1^ST FLOOR, BESIDE SIT COLLEGE, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 103.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, TUMKUR - RESPONDENT HEREIN IN NO.Vi.Bhu.Swa.Ha/KIADB/Tu/Comp No.8326/2022-23/88 DTD 13.05.2022 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT - THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, TUMKUR TO REFER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FILED U/S 18 OF LAND ACQUSITION ACT, MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E TO COMPETENT CIVIL COURT.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

WP No. 11658 of 2022

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

"It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records and quash the Endorsement issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Tumkur - Respondent herein in No.Vi.Bhu.Swa.Ha/KIADB/Tu/ Comp.No.8326/2022-23/88 dated 13-05-2022 marked as Annexure 'F'-by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be and further be pleased to issue appropriate direction to the Respondnet-The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Tumkur to refer the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act marked as Annexure 'E' to competent Civil Court and grant the Petitioner such other reliefs as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with costs."

¶27

The petitioner’s grand father-Sri Narasimhaiah was owner of the land in Sy.No.75 of Mudigerekaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk amongst other lands. After his death, the property was transferred to his wife-Smt. Rangamma, who is the grandmother of the petitioner.

¶28

The State/KIADB acquired the said land under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas

¶29

¶30

WP No. 11658 of 2022

¶31

Development Act, 1966, on 24.04.2010. The possession of the land was taken over by the KIADB and the award came to be passed and notice addressed to the grand mother of the petitioner. When the same came to be objected to by the petitioner as also the other daughters of his grandmother, i.e., his aunt. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Civil Court for adjudication under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and LAC.No.16/2020 was registered.

¶32

The said Rangamma, the grandmother of the petitioner expired on 06.02.2021. The legal representatived of the deceased Rangamma continued the proceedings and a compromise was held on 19.02.2022. It is only thereafter that they realized that no proceedings have been filed seeking for grant of compensation. Hence, their application was filed, which came to be rejected on 13.05.2022 on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed

¶33

¶34

WP No. 11658 of 2022

¶35

period. It is for that reason the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has a alternative efficacious remedy and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶37

Admittedly, the award was passed on 08.09.2020 and a notice was issued. Thereafter, the proceedings were taken up in LAC No.16/2020 on account of dispute between the family members. The entire proceedings having occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic period. I am of the considered opinion that the referring Authority ought to have considered the impact of COVID and condoned the delay, if any, in filing the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶38

In view of the above, I passed the following:

¶39

¶40

WP No. 11658 of 2022

¶41

:ORDER:

¶42

a) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶43

b) Delay, if any, in filing the application at Annexure–E is condoned in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mis.Application No.29/2022 in Misc. Application No.665/2021 in suo motu Writ Petition No.3/2020 wherein limitation period has been extended.

¶44

c) Writ of certiorari is issued. Consequently, Annexure-F is also quashed.

¶45

d) The respondent is directed to consider the application by the petitioner at Annexure-E dehors limitation period in terms of the observations made herein above and make necessary orders of reference within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this orders.

¶46

e) Respondent 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 respondent has any doubt about the order, respondent may verify the contents of the order

¶47

¶48

WP No. 11658 of 2022

¶49

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.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

KTY

Sri S L Raghavendra v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S L Raghavendra v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

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 L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka