Disposed

Hanumantharaju T H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2022WP/1622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider representations regarding compensation for non-cultivable ('Phut Kharab') land omitted from the acquisition award, directing reconsideration within three months under the KIAD Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.4 to consider representations regarding non-cultivable land and pass an award within three months, applying the precedent Sadashivaiah.

Hanumantharaju T H Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1622 OF 2022(LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . HANUMANTHARAJU T H S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O THYAMAGONDALU NELAMANGALA TALUKU BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562132.

¶9

2 . ERAMMA D/O LATE MUDDANAGAPPA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/O THYAMAGONDALU NELAMANGALA TALUKU

¶11

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562132.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.K R LINGARAJU, ADV. (VC))

¶14

AND

¶15

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARATMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001.

¶16

2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶17

REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶18

¶19

AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU 560001.

¶20

3 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO 49, 5TH FLOOR EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶21

4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO 14/1, ARAVINDA BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.SESHU V. HCGP FOR R1 (PH): SRI. GOPAL V BILALMANE, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4(VC))

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNX-C1, DTD. 28.01.2015 IN TERMS OF ORDERS IN W.P. NO. 4928/2009 DTD. 31.08.2009 AND W.P. NO. 201108/2018 DTD. 22.01.2020 VIDE ANNX-F AND F1 RESPECTIVELY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE A KHARAB LAND BEARING SY.NO.17/1 MEASURING 38 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT THYAMAGONDALU VILLAGE, NELAMANGLA TALUKU, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.1.

¶29

Sri Gopal V. Bilalmane, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following relief:

¶31

“a) Issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioners vide Annexure-C1, dated 28/01/2015 in terms of orders in W.P.NO.4928/2009 dated 31/08/2009 and W.P.NO.201108/2018 dated 22/01/2020 vide Annexure-F & F1 , respectively and direct the respondents to pay compensation in respect of the ‘A’ kharab land bearing Sy.No.17/1 measuring 38 guntas, situated at Thyamagondalu Vilage, Nelamangala Taluku, Bengaluru Rural District.”

¶32

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owner of the land bearing

¶33

¶34

Sy.No.17/1 measuring 11 Acre 16 Guntas out of which, 38 Guntas is ‘A’ Kharab land and 4 Guntas is ‘B’ Kharab, situated at Thayamagondalu Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The said land has been acquired by the respondents under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KIAD Act’ for short) by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 02.08.2006 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act and followed by the Final Notification dated 21.07.2010 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. Thereafter, the respondents have passed an award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act only to an extent of 10 Acre 14 Guntas in Sy.No.17/1 but they have not paid any compensation to the remaining land bearing Sy.No.17/1 measuring

¶35

1 Acre 2 Guntas saying that there is no provision to pay the compensation to Kharab land and issued notice as per Annexure-B dated 08.11.2011. Hence, the petitioners have submitted representations vide

¶36

¶37

Annexures – C & C1 and the same have not been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶38

Sri K. R. Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in respect of Kharab land is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of SADASHIVAIAH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. reported in ILR 2003 KAR 5088.

¶39

Sri Seshu.V, learned High Court

¶40

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Gopal V. Bilalmane, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 have submitted that if this Court grants some reasonable time, the representations submitted by the petitioners vide

¶41

¶42

Annexures – C & C1 will be considered in accordance with law.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶44

The petitioners are the owner of the land

¶45

bearing Sy.No.17/1 measuring 11 Acre 16 Guntas situated at Thayamagondalu Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and the same has been acquired by the respondents under the KIAD Act by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 02.08.2006

¶46

under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. Out of which, 38 Guntas is ‘A’ Kharab land and 4 Guntas is ‘B’ Kharab. While passing the award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, no award has been passed in respect

¶47

of Kharab lands. Hence, the petitioners have given representations vide Annexures - C & C1 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer / respondent No.4.

¶48

¶49

This Court in the case of SADASHIVAIAH (supra)

¶50

in para Nos.31 and 32 has held as follows;

¶51

“31. The words phut Kharab, therefore, mean and have reference to a land which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unfit for cultivation. After coming into the force of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 the word phut Kharab has been defined under Rule 21(2) as under:-

¶52

"during the process of classification, land included as unarable shall be treated as "Pot Kharab". Pot Kharab land may be classified as follows. (a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey including the farm buildings or threshing flours of the holder;

¶53

(b) That which is not assessed because,

¶54

(i) it is reserved or assigned for public purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or recognised footpath or by a tank or stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic purposes; (iii) used as burial

¶55

¶56

ground or cremation ground; (iv) assigned for villager potteries."

¶57

32. Therefore, it becomes clear if the land falls within the category of 21(2)(a) it is not a government land, it belongs to the ownership of the petitioners. If it falls under 21(2)(b) then it belongs to the government and the petitioners cannot have a claim over the said land. However, when the petitioners claim that the said land falls within 21(2)(a) and therefore they are entitled to the compensation LAO proceeds on the assumption that it falls within Section 22(1)(b) and therefore they are not entitled to compensation as it belongs to the government and accordingly he has declined to pass any award. It is not in dispute that before arriving at such a conclusion the LAO has not given an opportunity to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act to substantiate their contention. Without any such enquiry, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners he proceeds on the assumption that the said Kharab land falls within 22(1)(b) and therefore petitioners

¶58

¶59

have no claim, as such he has declined to pass the award. On that ground also, the impugned orders passed by the LAO cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”

¶60

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer / respondent No.4 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners vide Annexures – C & C1 in accordance with law keeping in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of SADASHIVAIAH (supra), within three months from

¶61

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

HA/-

Hanumantharaju T H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantharaju T H 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

Harishchandra Kulal Vs Hegra Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Limited

Ramalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

D S Shivanagappa Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Savita S K Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Vasanthakumar T S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rangamma Vs the State of Karnataka