Dismissed

Shri T Ramakrishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022WP/15239/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash acquisition communication under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. The court applied the Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. Judgment dismissed the writ petition reserving li

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise the plea of compensation in appropriate proceedings.

Shri T Ramakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 15239 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15239 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1. SHRI T RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT GIDADAKONENAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S SHIVANANDA .,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR MARG, BANGALORE 560001

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST,

¶15

BANGALORE 560020

¶16

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1, SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS PER ANN-D AND CONSEQUENTLY TO COLLECT FROM THE PETITIONER, THE SUM OF RS.10,63,602/- (RUPEES TEN LAKHS SIXTY THREE

¶20

¶21

WP No. 15239 of 2014

¶22

THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWO ONLY) PAID BY THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARINGTHROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

a) Quash the communication dated 05.02.2014 issued by the r-3 as per Ann-D and consequently to collect from the petitioner, the sum of rs.10,63,602/(rupees ten lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred two only) paid by the Bangalore Development Authority to the petitioner.

¶27

b) To declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents BDA pursuant to the preliminary notification and final notification and the award as per Annx-A,B and C respectively are deemed to have lapsed in view of the deeming provision contained under section 24(2) of the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and re-settlement act, 2013 and

¶28

c) consequently, for a direction to the respondents - BDA to receive the sum of rs.10,63,602/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred Two only) paid to the petitioner towards the compensation in lieu of the acquisition under the preliminary notification and final notification as per Annx-A and B respectively.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 15239 of 2014

¶31

Perusal of the entire petition indicates that the said

¶32

plea are on the basis of Section 24(2) of the enactment of the new Acquisition Act i.e., Right to

¶33

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

¶34

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI AND OTHERS , reported in AIR 2014 SC 982 , Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 is not applicable.

¶35